Chase de Vere - should I move to them?

JonClay

Hi there
I'm considering combining some of my old pensions from former employers into one pension pot with Chase de Vere (using the Fidelity Network).

Does anyone have any experience of using this company (they're UK based and nationwide)? Any good reviews? Any horror stories? Do you think it's a good idea generally? Their paperwork suggests that they can do a much better job than my current pension providers are doing.

Many thanks
Jon

kidmugsy

I'd prefer to keep pension pots spread across at least two providers. Then you have some protection not only against fraud and bankruptcy, but also IT disasters.

dunstonh

Chase De vere have an awful reputation.

Alexland

JonClay wrote: »

Their paperwork suggests that they can do a much better job than my current pension providers are doing.

A suggestion isn't worth the glossy paper it's written on.

There are better options keep looking and learning.

Alex

Imnoexpert_2

CdV took over the firm of IFAs which my wife used.

First action was to increase the annual fee on funds under investment from 0.5% to 0.75%.

lately they have been nudging her towards their wealth management option at additional cost. The standard service means that your portfolio of investments is only reviewed and changed annually and put in a standard portfolio to match your risk banding. WM will be more flexible, agile and run by a new super duper investment manager type.

Their paperwork is very glossy, and I get the feeling our advisor is under pressure to spend more time getting new business than looking after existing accounts than before.They seem to have better reporting systems and compliance mechanisms than the old firm.

Financial advice is expensive (sometimes not getting it is expensive too). Who knows if one firm will be better than another, and if the more you pay the better you get. I don’t know but then Imnoexpert.

dunstonh

lately they have been nudging her towards their wealth management option at additional cost. The standard service means that your portfolio of investments is only reviewed and changed annually and put in a standard portfolio to match your risk banding. WM will be more flexible, agile and run by a new super duper investment manager type.

The former is advisory. The latter is discretionary. Discretionary can be made to sound attractive but it is too often used by firms with "wealth management" in their names to give poorer returns. When used via a low cost arrangement via an IFA, it can be effective. Most IFAs are advisory and once a year is perfectly fine.

IFA costs are not VATable (bar a few exceptions but usually not). Discretionary services are Vatable.

The general rule of thumb is to avoid firms that use wealth management in their name or tag line as it usually means expensive and restricted. As they are not IFAs, they often try to hide that by using similar words which muddy the water.